Keywords
Intimate materiality
Boundaries
Disciplinarity
Expanded practice
Boundary-breaking
How to Cite
Abstract
The Impact 12 Conference asked us to consider how print practitioners have been breaking boundaries through technological innovation and cross-disciplinary practice. What new territories have been unearthed through contesting the field and its proximal position to others? In our earliest conversations about these questions, we realised they were predicated on the assumption that breaking boundaries is good because it allows artists to pursue the new or unconventional. It also supposes that disciplinary progress will require an act of breaking, perhaps a rupture, transgression, or breaching. The notion of breaking boundaries also implies that we exist in a state of disciplinary limitations. Why is it that artists (including us at times) feel compelled to transgress boundaries and reshape the field? Finally, where do we locate the value of practice: Is it as they say ‘on the cutting edge’, or can value be oriented another way?
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have become preoccupied with the production and fortification of boundaries on a personal, community, and global scale. This paper was born from our realisation that the pandemic has amplified, redrafted, and problematised notions of the boundary in the collective imagination. This moment called us—two artists reaching across a disciplinary divide—to question the nature of boundaries and their implications. Our desire to critically assess the value of boundary-making and breaking led us to our thesis: Is there another way to approach disciplinarity without theorising boundaries, territories, and their rupture?
References
Akerman, J. (2009) The imperial map: cartography and the mastery of empire. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Baker, G. (2005) ‘Photography’s expanded field’, October, 114, pp. 120-140.
Barker, E., Web, N., and Wood, K. (1999) ‘Historical introduction: the idea of the artist’ in Barker, E., Web, N, and Wood, K. (eds.) The changing status of the artist. New Haven; London: Yale University Press in association with the Open University, pp. 7-25.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Milton Keynes, England: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.
Bennett, J. (2010) Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Bois, Y. A. (2014) ‘Not [on] diagrams’. In Papapetros, S. and Rose, J. (Eds.). Retracing the expanded field: Encounters between art and architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 48-50.
Bryson, N. (1988) ‘The gaze in the expanded field’ in Foster, H. (Ed.). Vision and Visuality. Seattle: Bay Press, pp. 87-113.
Condorelli, C. (2013) ‘Too close to see: Notes on friendship, a conversation with"Johan Frederik Hartle’ in Herbert, S., and Szefer Karlsen, A. (Eds.) Self organised: occasional table. London/Bergen Norway: Open Editions/Hordaland Art Centre, pp. 62-73.
Darden, L. and Maull, N. (1977) ‘Interfield theories’, Philosophy of Science, 44(1), pp. 43-64.
Doherty, C. (2009) ‘Introduction’, in Doberty, C. (Ed.) Situation: Documents of contemporary art. London and Cambridge, MA: Whitechapel Gallery and MIT Press, pp. 12-19.
Fares, G. (2004). ‘Painting in the expanded field’, Janus Head, 7(2): 477-487.
Donald, D. (2012) “Indigenous Métissage: a decolonizing research sensibility’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(5), pp. 533-555.
Foucault, M. (1972) The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Gardam, C. (2021). ‘proppaNOW: positioning “authentic” urban Aboriginal art’. Overland, March 18, unpaginated. [Online] Available at: https://overland.org.au/2021/03/proppanow-positioning-authentic-urban-aboriginal-art/ (Accessed 11 July 2022).
Nelson, H.G. and Stolterman, E. (2003) The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world, New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications. (footnote)
Henderson, G.L., and Waterstone, M. (2009) Geographic thought: A praxis perspective. London: Routledge.
Humphries, C. (2015) ‘Material Remains: The Afterlife of Personal Objects’, PhD thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne.
Kalina, R. (2021) The changing boundaries and nature of the modern art world: The art object and the object of art. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Kluttz, J., Walker, J., and Walter, P. (2020) ‘Unsettling allyship, unlearning, and learning towards decolonising solidarity’, Studies in the Education of Adults, 52(1), pp. 49-66.
Krauss, R. (1979) ‘Sculpture in the expanded field’, October, 8, pp. 30-44.
Kwon, M. (2004) One place after another: Site-specific art and locational identity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Land, C. (2015). Decolonising solidarity. London: Bloomsbury.
Lange, C. (2010) ‘Bound to Fail’ in Le Feuvre, L. (Ed.) Failure: Documents of Contemporary Art. London and Cambridge, MA: Whitechapel Gallery and MIT Press, pp. 131-137.
McLean, I. A. (2013) ‘Surviving “The Contemporary”: What Indigenous artists want, and how to get it’, Contemporary Visual Art + Culture Broadsheet 42(3), pp. 167-173.
Mbembe, A.J. (2016) ‘Decolonizing the university: new directions’, Arts & Humanities in Higher Education, 15(1), pp. 29-45.
Meltzer, E. (2013) ‘The expanded field and other, more fragile states of mind’, in Meltzer, E. (Ed.) Systems we have loved: conceptual art, affect, and the antihumanist turn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 117-152.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1969) Phenomenology of perception. Translated by C. Smith. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Metcalf, B. (1993) ‘Replacing the myth of modernism.’ American Craft, 53(1), February, pp. 40-47.
Pallasmaa, J. (2005). The eyes of the skin: Architecture and the senses. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons
Papapetros, S. and Rose J. (Eds.). (2014). Retracing the expanded field: Encounters between art and architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Phenix, P.H. (1964). Realms of Meaning. New York, NY: McGraw Hill. Petts, J., Owens, S. and Bulkeley, H. (2008) ‘Crossing boundaries: Interdisciplinarity in the context of urban environments’, Geoforum, 39, pp.
-601.
Pyś, P. (2020) Momentary arrest: Collecting interdisciplinary artworks. [Online]. Available at: https://walkerart.org/magazine/momentary-arrest-collecting- interdisciplinary-artworks. (Accessed: 27 May 2022).
Ravencroft, A. (2018) ‘Strange weather: Indigenous Materialisms, New Materialism, and Colonialism’, Cambridge Journal of Postcolonial Literary Inquiry, 5(3), pp. 353-370.
Reeves, K. (2018) ‘The re-vision of printmaking’ in Pelzer-Montada, R. (Ed.) Perspectives on Contemporary Printmaking. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 72-81
Rose-Redwood, R., Barnd, N.B., Hetoevėhotohke’e, A.L., Dias, S., and Patrick, W. (2020) ‘Decolonising the map: recentering indigenous mappings’ Cartographica, 55(3), pp.151-152.
Rodgers. P. and Bremmer, C. (2011) ‘Alterplinarity—alternative disciplinarity in future art and design research pursuits’, Studies in Material Thinking, 6, pp. 1-16.
Schmedling, O. (2015) ‘Questioning printmaking in the expanded field’ in Petterson, J. (Ed.) Printmaking in the Expanded Field. Oslo: Oslo National Academy of the Arts, pp. 41-45.
Sennet, R. (2009). The craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Shumway, D.R. and Messer-Davidow, E. (1991) ‘Disciplinarity: an introduction’, Poetics Today, 12(2), pp. 201-225.
Todd, Z. (2016). ‘An indigenous feminist’s take on the ontological turn: “Ontology” is just another word for colonialism’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 29 (1), pp. 4-22.
Vidler, A. (2004) ‘Architecture’s expanded field’, Artforum, 42(8), pp. 142–47. Weisberg, R. (1986) ‘The syntax of the print: In search of an aesthetic context’, The Tamarind Papers: A Journal of the Fine Print, 9(2), pp. 8-10.
Weisberg, R. (1993) ‘Critical theory and the print: New criteria for print qualities in the expanded field’, Contemporary Impressions, 1(1), pp.10-12.
Wolmark, J., and Gates-Stuart, E. (2004) ‘Cultural hybrids, post-disciplinary digital practices and new research frameworks: testing the limits’, paper presented at the Pixel Raiders 2 conference, Australian Capital Territory, 6-8 April.
Wright, A. (2006) Carpentaria. Artarmon, N.S.W.: Giramondo.
Ugazio, R. (2016) ‘Shifting sites: An itinerant jeweller’s actions and traces out in the world’, PhD thesis, RMIT University, Melbourne"
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Clare Humphries, Renée Ugazio